Driver Must Request UIM Coverage
Read full article at https://lnkd.in/ggKkFa7J, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g7Fdj2kF and at https://lnkd.in/g5HS52JW and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4750 posts.
Post 4748
Kimberly Rogers appealed from a judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court granting Lyft, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, Allstate Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment, and Erie Insurance Exchange’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In Kimberly Rogers v. Erie Insurance Exchange; Allstate Insurance Company; and LYFT, Inc., No. 2023-CA-0447-MR, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (April 19, 2024) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute.
FACTS
Kimberly Rogers was a driver for Lyft, Inc. (Lyft) and was involved in an automobile accident with another motor vehicle. Rogers apparently suffered substantial physical injuries. The driver of the other motor vehicle negligently caused the accident and was insured by State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). State Farm paid Rogers the policy’s liability coverage limits. At the time of the accident, Rogers’ vehicle was insured by Erie Insurance Exchange (Erie), and Lyft carried motor vehicle insurance with Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate). Both Erie and Allstate denied Rogers’ claims for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits.
Rogers sued Erie, Allstate, and Lyft hoping one would provide UIM coverage.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
Lyft is required by 601 KAR [Kentucky Administrative Regulations] 1:113 § 3(1) to maintain primary automobile insurance that provides coverage both for a driver who is logged into the Lyft application and for drivers engaged in a prearranged ride. Lyft is also required by 601 KAR 1:113 § 3(2) to maintain liability insurance, PIP [Personal Injury Protection] coverage, UM [Uninsured Motorist] coverage and UIM coverage for drivers who are logged into the Lyft application, who are not engaged in a prearranged ride.
Allstate insures Lyft under a policy of insurance that Defendant Allstate represents only provides the coverage required by KRS § 281.655(12) as a prearranged ride liability policy, which Allstate contends applies only when Plaintiff was carrying persons for Defendant Lyft.
Defendant Erie insures Plaintiff under a policy which it contends excludes UIM coverage for all transportation network company activities, whether as part of a pre-trip liability policy or prearranged ride liability policy.
To the extent that Defendant Allstate is contractually obligated to provide UIM coverage to Lyft drivers engaged in Lyft operations in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and to the extent that Plaintiff was engaged in Lyft operations in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Defendant Allstate is required to provide UIM coverage to the Plaintiff in an amount of at least $50,000. To the extent that it is determined that Plaintiff was not engaged in Defendant Lyft’s operations at the time of the collision Erie is required to provide UIM coverage to Plaintiff, not to exceed the limits of Plaintiff’s policy with Defendant Erie.
ANALYSIS
The Court of Appeals rejected Rogers’ contention that an ambiguity exists as to the exception to the UIM exclusion contained in the policy. Under its plain terms, the exception is triggered only if the automobile was “identified for Business use as indicated on the ‘Declarations.'” Rogers seizes upon the language on the declaration page that identified the use of her vehicle as “To work 10-14.” However, “To work” is commonly utilized to indicate that the insured drives the motor vehicle to and from work. Rogers admitted that her vehicle was not rated for business use as required under the exception to the UIM exclusion. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that Rogers was not entitled to UIM coverage under her policy of insurance.
Rogers additionally asserted that public policy requires Lyft and/or Erie to provide UIM coverage. Generally, UIM exclusions in motor vehicle insurance policies do not offend the public policy of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. UIM coverage is only required insurance coverage when the insured requests such coverage. The insured simply may disclose the business use of her motor vehicle and request UIM coverage rated for such use. She did not.
In sum, the Court of Appeals concluded that the circuit court properly rendered summary judgment in favor of Lyft, Allstate, and Erie and the judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance, much to the surprise of some, is just a contract. It must be interpreted as written. UM and UIM coverage is available in the State of Kentucky if the insured requests the coverage and provides the insurer with information concerning the risk taken. Using a vehicle for Lyft is akin to the operation of a taxi cab and is not akin to a person who drives to and from work. By not properly asking for the coverage and advising the insurer of the risk, Ms. Rogers had no UM/UIM coverage.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
